Think you are correct to some extent except in the rules it is written that shellhole entry is not double for higher elevation entry, you must read the example for it to be transparently clear.From my reading of the rules, the cost of 2MF to enter Shellholes is just that - 2MF, not 1MF for the hex plus 1MF. So if you have to cross a crest line going up, this is doubled to 4MF (or 2MF if just entering the Open Ground).
Doing this with Abrupt Elevation Change would add 1MF for the intermediary open ground, right? So it would become 3MF if not getting protection from the shellholes, 5MF if getting it.
(Of course, I've been known to read the rules wrong)
And an additional cost of 2 MF for rain?Think it is 3MF it not entering the shellholes, 4MF otherwise.
I would think so yes, since there are two elevation changes being made.And an additional cost of 2 MF for rain?
I am sure it should be 2 MF up hill or 3 MF uphill into shellholes (not 4MF).Paul wrote: If FF33 had been the same level as EE33 then you would be going up without an intermediate elevation so it would have cost 2 MF (2x1, FFMO) or 4 MF (2x2, no FFMO)
In the absence of this q&a I would have agreed with Paul. But B2.4 is written in a very hazy way, and it is not too surprising that the cost behaves like a foxhole/wall, i.e. not doubled for gaining a level.Q&A said:A4.133 & B2.4 The B2.4 example indicates that the cost for changing elevation and moving into an open ground hex and using a shellhole to negate moving in the open is 3 MF which seems to contradict A4.133 which would suggest that it should cost 4 MF. Is 3 MF correct?
A. The COT for the OG is doubled to 2 MF +1 MF for entering shellhole for a total of 3.
Wasn't this Q&A incorporated into an example in the 2nd Edition?In the absence of this q&a I would have agreed with Paul. But B2.4 is written in a very hazy way, and it is not too surprising that the cost behaves like a foxhole/wall, i.e. not doubled for gaining a level.
The rule example was in ch O and also transferred to ch B.Wasn't this Q&A incorporated into an example in the 2nd Edition?
That Q&A is an unneccessary waste of space in the Q&A folder.In the absence of this q&a I would have agreed with Paul. But B2.4 is written in a very hazy way, and it is not too surprising that the cost behaves like a foxhole/wall, i.e. not doubled for gaining a level.
JR
The example on B2.4 doesn't include a change of level. It shows a move from one gully to a gully/shellhole at the same level. That indicates that the cost to enter a hex with a shellhole is +1 MF and not a strict two MF, but it doesn't show anything about a change of level.Wasn't this Q&A incorporated into an example in the 2nd Edition?
I don't see anything in the B2.4 EX that covers a change of level. A very reasonable way to read B2.4 is that the COT for using shellholes is plus one MF, and that cost should be doubled per B.2. B2.4 is not clear whether the two MF cost is part of the "normal MF/MP cost for entrance" of the shellhole hex or the normal cost of one MF plus an add-on. The q&a makes it clear that it is an add-on, like crossing a wall.That Q&A is an unneccessary waste of space in the Q&A folder.
From the rules B2,4 in line 11-12,I don't see anything in the B2.4 EX that covers a change of level. A very reasonable way to read B2.4 is that the COT for using shellholes is plus one MF, and that cost should be doubled per B.2. B2.4 is not clear whether the two MF cost is part of the "normal MF/MP cost for entrance" of the shellhole hex or the normal cost of one MF plus an add-on. The q&a makes it clear that it is an add-on, like crossing a wall.
JR